The Peak Oil-Climate Linkage

Posted by on

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a short piece for the newspaper about a talk by David Rutledge on his analysis of the peak oil-climate linkage:

Humanity may be rapidly running out of fossil fuels, according to Dave Rutledge, but every cloud has its silver lining.
In this case, the California Institute of Technology professor told a University of New Mexico audience Friday afternoon, running out of coal, petroleum and natural gas sooner than we expect would mean less chance to damage Earth’s climate.
“If it’s true,” he said of his data, “it is good news for climate change.”

Now Andy Dessler has taken the discussion a bit farther, with a nice discussion at Nature Climate Feedback:

There is an emerging view among some experts that recoverable fossil-fuel reserves are far smaller than previously thought. If so, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) highest emissions scenarios could be unrealistically high, thus limiting the worst-case climate change during the 21st century. This view of a constrained fossil-fuel supply points to a potential convergence of thinking about policies and actions needed to address the seemingly divergent problems of energy supply and climate change.

There is much to think about here, because if Dessler and Rutledge are right, there is a linkage between energy and climate policies that is both tighter and more immediate than is conventionally assumed. I had a great talk with Andy about this yesterday afternoon, and I pointed out to him what I think is a weakness in the analysis that both he and Rutledge have offered. The classic Hubbert analysis they employ does not, I think, sufficiently account for the economic effects of permanently higher energy costs increasing the body of economically recoverable reserves. I don’t think this invalidates the argument, but I think the models they’re employing need to better account for that variable. (I’ve got a small stack of papers dealing with this issue to read. I’ll try to expand this argument as I get a better handle on it.)

I don’t think this is in any way a fatal criticism, though, and I think these guys are onto an interesting line of inquiry.

Stuff I Wrote Elsewhere

Posted by on

Don Hancock, the watchdog:

Hancock is famously ascetic, receiving a salary of $9,000 a year for his work. He is a religious man, the son of a minister, and is active in the University Heights United Methodist Church, which is within walking distance of the modest university district apartment where he lives.
“We’re all children of God,” he said. “God created the universe, and we’re supposed to take care of it. Contamination isn’t taking care of it.”
It was Chuck McCutcheon, a former Journal reporter whose book “Nuclear Reactions” is the definitive history of WIPP’s political saga, who called him “the Ralph Nader of radioactive waste.”

Parasitic

Posted by on

I’m obviously no Malcolm Gladwell, but I’m a journalist too, and this very much captures how I feel about what I do:

“I spend my time talking to people who tell me things, and then I write them down,” he says. “I’m necessarily parasitic in a way.” He pauses, as if to consider whether he’s protesting too much. “I have done well as a parasite,” he goes on. “But I’m still a parasite.”

Drought in Kyrgyzstan

Posted by on

Drought does not only mean thirst and failed crops. In Kyrgyzstan it also means blackouts:

The question of whether the country will be able to avoid major heat and electricity outages has become more pressing than ever. Due to the especially dry weather since the summer of 2007 the level of water in Toktogul reservoir, which supports the country’s hydro power plant, has been especially low.

To maintain water reserves for the heating and electricity needs of the cold winter season, the Kyrgyz government imposed electricity rationing in late August.

Mixing Solar and Coal

Posted by on

Via Rich Sweeney, and interesting project to test adding solar energy to existing fossil fuel plants:

Both projects involve adding steam generated by a solar thermal field to a conventional fossil fuel-powered steam cycle, either to offset some of the coal or natural gas required to generate electric power or to boost overall plant power output. The projects will be conducted in parallel, with one focused on natural gas plant technologies and the other on coal plant technologies.

Cities Getting Bad Rap on Climate Change?

Posted by on

David Satterthwaite argues that the oft-repeated claim that cities generate three quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions is just plain wrong. Writing in the current issue of the journal Environment and Urbanization, he charts what sounds a lot like one of those oft-repeated urban legends:

Perhaps this was an estimate for the United States, which was then assumed to be valid worldwide. However, these figures are certainly inaccurate when applied to cities worldwide, although it is difficult to produce an accurate figure because there are too few cities for which there are detailed greenhouse gas emission inventories.

Sorting out what is city and what not is also a definitional issue. Should my city’s tally include the emissions from the farm outside of town where my food is grown?

[I]f greenhouse gas emissions from power stations and industries are assigned to the location of the person or institution who consumes them (rather than where they are produced), cities would account for a higher proportion of total emissions. But it would be misleading to attribute this to “cities” in general, since these emissions would be heavily concentrated in cities in high-income nations and they should be ascribed to the individuals and institutions whose consumption generates them, not to the places where they are located.

Hall on Energy Subsidies

Posted by on

Last week, I argued that U.S. military spending ought to be considered in a tally of energy subsidies. Daniel Hall thoughtfully disagrees:

You can certainly find estimates that imply total U.S. energy subsidies are north of $100 billion a year, but I haven’t seen any estimates that look rigorous or convincing.  This study put out by (or linked from) EarthTrack looks at least somewhat more respectable; it finds that total U.S. subsidies are $37-63 billion per year.  But notice that much of this is of an indirect nature — more than a third comes from the estimates of defending Persion Gulf oil shipments — and it is unclear who these indirect subsidies are supporting.  Securing the Gulf arguably subsidizes the world oil market — U.S. consumers may benefit, but so do all other world consumers.  Further, what percentage of our military expenses should be counted as an energy subsidy?  We have many strategic objectives beyond energy policy when we deploy forces in the Middle East (or elsewhere).